Nope, I love it how everyone tends to give their own definition of what they think a word means. So just setting the record straight on what a cult is.

So wouldnt that definition of cult just be what the person/publishing company whom put it out there for public consumption believed a cult is?

I'm not educated on religion. I find the entire subject very wishy washy and facts are often opinions and ideas. The idea that because some parts of a book are factual that the others must be isnt of sound logical thinking.

In the same regards without evidence supporting or disproving a theory or idea how can anyone say one way or another? Thus making the entire concept of arguing about relgion null and pointless untill more information is presented to mankind either by our own discovery or by the creators will.

Religion is not neccesarily the right word to use here. I would say established belief system.

Just because I make up some rediculous thing and call it religion does not make it correct or believeable.

Lets look at that. Religion is an established belief system. Why wouldnt an established belief system be a relgion? O right, its not yours. I believe the technicalities of the words with your logic would be as follows
religon = yours
Established belief system = religons to those whole belong to it, however because you dont, its not your religion. This acknowledges them as believers. If your religion is of the catholic nature then this makes you a non-believe by its standards of "I believe in 1 god"

Quote:

I can sincerely believe something and be sincerely wrong.... for example.... the Heaven's Gate CULT

Where is the evidence showing they were wrong? Right? I believe DD makes a great drinking partner. Right or wrong I wouldnt know. Never done it

[quote]
, or believing I can fly off of a 50 story building. If it is not believeable, then it is a cult.[/b] Believe-able to you. Thats the key there in your statements.

Quote:

By unbelievable, I mean that there is either no proof to support the theory, or that there is very questionable beginnings to the cult. (mormanism, Scientology, Jehovahs witnesses, Harri Krishna sp?, etc)

Technically..... proof to support your own religion doesnt exsist. Thats why its still a religon and not a science. Religion as it stands now is still all just theory. What would you do if someone proved that buddism is the religion of the creator and yours has been wrong since it was created so very long ago?
If someone laid the facts down and said heres the proof. A+B=buddism.

Quote:

Common sense is a beautiful thing, and I think we have it for a reason. There are inate "knowledges" in a man from the beginning. Man knows that he isn't the "creator", so there must be something that created him.

I call them mom and dad. Thats whats in front of my eyes. Technically..it was them. Sure you can argue the up the tree approach and then thats where we dont have the facts. I say, no facts = no arguement till facts exsist. You say...religion.

Quote:

If there were a religion that was True, then it would have to be available to all men at all times (meaning that it had been around since the beginning). That is why there are only a few belief systems that are considered true religions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Atheism [which is a belief system also!]). They have been around for a long time (therefore giving all men the opportunity to believe in them).

Technically....Atheism ...if you can call it that...was first by the bibles accounts.
God created adam.....then god stop to adam. God wasnt talking adam before hand so by that time line there was a period in time when adam didnt know, thus atheism was first.
Earth and man by the bible is/are 13,000-14,000 years old. I cant exactly remember but its at least 10X as long as AD. Just food for thought

Quote:

And really, only 2 of these have been around and widely accepted for longer than 2000 years and that is christianity and Judaism. (Islam was founded by Mohammed in 622 AD)

Really. Christianity was around for how long? How old is the bible again?

Quote:

Both of these have mounds of historical and physical evidence to support their claims. Not only that, these beliefs come out of hunreds of people having experiences with "God" and they all align through writings (bible and torah)....not one man making up some unbelieveable story.

Wouldnt hundreds of people with a un-believable claim be a cult? You said it earlyier...

Quote:

Unless of course you don't believe in anything, which leaves nothing as true, so whats the point?

Thats my 2 cents

What is the point. Thats the question of life. I'll never know it. You'll live life thinking you know by my standards and logic, but you'll never know till its to late.

So wouldnt that definition of cult just be what the person/publishing company whom put it out there for public consumption believed a cult is?

I'm not educated on religion. I find the entire subject very wishy washy and facts are often opinions and ideas. The idea that because some parts of a book are factual that the others must be isnt of sound logical thinking.

In the same regards without evidence supporting or disproving a theory or idea how can anyone say one way or another? Thus making the entire concept of arguing about relgion null and pointless untill more information is presented to mankind either by our own discovery or by the creators will.

a) you are somewhat more educated on religion than a great many people who purport to be religious. It's obvious that you've done at least some reading/thinking on the subject

b) a faith/belief questioned is a stronger one than that blindly followed in my opinion

c) many of the religious tomes have all been written by authors that sincerely believed in what they were writing, and were doing so as a recording of history. yes, one can argue about the lack of scientific understanding, and world-wide knowledge/perception of some of these observers. and yes, some of the authors didn't personally observe some of what has been written, but instead were recording what others had witnessed.

the more that is found to be true, or archealogically consistent with depictions in these tombs, the more credibility is lent to the entire text.

you are attempting to apply legal logical arguments, when most simply need civil level logical arguments. "the preponderance of the truth". for some, they reach that level of preponderance of truth at an earlier stage than others.

the same is true regarding "scientific" beliefs. some accept the scientists' and/or published statements - while others have to fully understand, grasp, and test them (or as close as we can come to it - the field of sciences is so widely spread now, that most of us can't comprehend 1/10th of it - and are thusly forced to go back to taking some of it on faith)

in the end, it ultimately, often comes down to which system of beliefs is easier to swallow - and part of that determination is also often based upon said individual's willingness to look at things open, honestly, and perhaps even confess to not knowing something.

a) you are somewhat more educated on religion than a great many people who purport to be religious. It's obvious that you've done at least some reading/thinking on the subject

b) a faith/belief questioned is a stronger one than that blindly followed in my opinion

Perhaps. I still dont think I even begin to quailfy under the relms of educated.
Whats the name of the guy from . it escapes me right now. but every time we had one of these I was always and still am amazed at how much faith he's got. Everytime. Stuck with it. I long for that kinda faith.

Quote:

c) many of the religious tomes have all been written by authors that sincerely believed in what they were writing, and were doing so as a recording of history. yes, one can argue about the lack of scientific understanding, and world-wide knowledge/perception of some of these observers. and yes, some of the authors didn't personally observe some of what has been written, but instead were recording what others had witnessed.

the more that is found to be true, or archealogically consistent with depictions in these tombs, the more credibility is lent to the entire text.

Credibility...... doesnt make it the truth.

Quote:

you are attempting to apply legal logical arguments, when most simply need civil level logical arguments. "the preponderance of the truth". for some, they reach that level of preponderance of truth at an earlier stage than others.

the same is true regarding "scientific" beliefs. some accept the scientists' and/or published statements - while others have to fully understand, grasp, and test them (or as close as we can come to it - the field of sciences is so widely spread now, that most of us can't comprehend 1/10th of it - and are thusly forced to go back to taking some of it on faith)

The difference is, we can with sound judgement say this makes logical sense. And if we so choose to can test it out. If I plug A into B then C happens. Do I need to try it out? probally not. But I could if I wanted to. With religion its not the case. "faith" comes in and fucks the science all up.

Quote:

in the end, it ultimately, often comes down to which system of beliefs is easier to swallow - and part of that determination is also often based upon said individual's willingness to look at things open, honestly, and perhaps even confess to not knowing something.

pleading ignorance on a topic is something few are willing/able to do

In the end, I think its a person's own attempts to justify their lives that leads them towards religous beliefs. From there I have a few other theories but they are just my own and nothing more then theories that make some sense to me. I'm sure they all miss some details that make them not facts, but hey I dont loose sleep over it.

Thanks for taking the time to read my post Deke. I always appreciate a good challenge! Let me now clarify a few of the points that I made.

There is a major difference between established belief systems and religion. If I get a dilusional group of people together that actually believe U of M is good at football, then they are not a religion, they are a group that shares a similar belief (that based on recent facts is incorrect ). Some of these so called "religions" like scientology for example are not, what I would call, a religion. They believe in a science fiction story writen by Hubbard which is much like Star Trek or Star Wars. I see no difference between a group of trekkies and a group of scientologists. not a religion, but a cult. But once again that is my opinion.

You say "Where is the evidence showing they were wrong? Right? I believe DD makes a great drinking partner. Right or wrong I wouldnt know. Never done it"

Well, I have never jumped off of a 50 story building thinking I could fly, but I KNOW that I will die when I hit the ground!! I don't need to experience certain things to know they are wrong or a bad idea!!

You say "Technically..... proof to support your own religion doesnt exsist. Thats why its still a religon and not a science."

I had not identified with a religion up to this point, so to assume one is wrong. I am however a strong christian, but realize, I am making arguements, not for christianity, but for logical reasons why one thing is true while another is not. Lets talk about proof. Historical proof? the bible is used almost exclusively in the archeological world as the absolute truth about where cities were, and battles where, and for timelines. So, historically it is proven true by many archeological finds. Where as, Mormanism for example, states that there was a 13th tribe of Isreal in America and Joseph Smith read all of the facts from 2 giant golden tablets. No historical proof of any of his story exists now or ever.

I cannot however prove to you that God is the creator. Thats the beauty of free will. there has to be a faith aspect for it to be a choice. but i digress.

I at least am offering a believable explanation of where we came from shared by many people (after all, we know matter cannot come from nothing- that is a TRUTH of science). whats yours? You say I have no arguement till we know, I say how can you call me wrong when you don't know either?

You say "Christianity hasn't been around that long" Christianity, as an extension of Judaism, has been around since (the creation of the world by their beliefs) but historically since the first writings were found in the mesopotamian region around 1600 BC, many Jewsih writings have been discovered that date very closely back to that time. The Bible has been around approximately 2000 years since Paul worte most of the books around the time of Christ with the last one being finished sometime around 70 AD. It wasn't cannonized till later, but it had already been written and the books had already been widely accepted as the true cannonized Bible.

you say "Wouldnt hundreds of people with a un-believable claim be a cult? You said it earlyier... "

Yes, if their claim were un-believable. Realize however, that the whole nation of Isreal believed this from its creation, and many people long before that (abrahamic timeline). It was somewhat mainstream (at very least in Isreal), either because it was believable, or because of society. Many other religions of the time such as Baal worhip, or roman and greek gods being worhiped did not stand the test of time.

And finally, I was so discouraged to read that last part of your post. What if life does have a point!! What if we really were specifically created and loved by a God? Then life would mean so much and every action would be very important! And you would be a neccessary piece in God's plan! Your life would and does matter!!

I just wanted to respond to a couple of the points you made. They were very good points! You had me thinking hard on a few of them! My tone in this is in no way condescending, more as an interesting discussion for me!

cult can be good and ask good tings of you. In my opinion most obvious cults are guilt of:

-asking for all your money.
-making you work for them.
-Making sexual requirements you would never tolerate before the cult experience.
-making you distance your self from your family.
-threatening you.
-Leaving the cult is not an option.
-Devalues life, in coolaide drinking situations.
-they tell you what to think and when to think it

Thanks for taking the time to read my post Deke. I always appreciate a good challenge! Let me now clarify a few of the points that I made.

Its all in good thinking. I'm waiting around work for the presentation to wrap up so I can score a free dinner before I go to job #2

Quote:

There is a major difference between established belief systems and religion. If I get a dilusional group of people together that actually believe U of M is good at football, then they are not a religion, they are a group that shares a similar belief (that based on recent facts is incorrect ). Some of these so called "religions" like scientology for example are not, what I would call, a religion. They believe in a science fiction story writen by Hubbard which is much like Star Trek or Star Wars. I see no difference between a group of trekkies and a group of scientologists. not a religion, but a cult. But once again that is my opinion.

Exactly. You're judging a group of people and what they think and putting a label on them.

Quote:

You say "Where is the evidence showing they were wrong? Right? I believe DD makes a great drinking partner. Right or wrong I wouldnt know. Never done it"

Well, I have never jumped off of a 50 story building thinking I could fly, but I KNOW that I will die when I hit the ground!! I don't need to experience certain things to know they are wrong or a bad idea!!

What if I told you that there would be an aig bag at the bottom? Makes ya think now dont it? What you think is your opinion. That is key within this arguement. Its all personal opinions. Never has it been anything else

Quote:

you say "Technically..... proof to support your own religion doesnt exsist. Thats why its still a religon and not a science."

I had not identified with a religion up to this point, so to assume one is wrong. I am however a strong christian, but realize, I am making arguements, not for christianity, but for logical reasons why one thing is true while another is not. Lets talk about proof.

I just assumed, as do you about the "cults" and what they are. Ironic how that works out ya know? Its not just you, we all do it.

Quote:

Historical proof? the bible is used almost exclusively in the archeological world as the absolute truth about where cities were, and battles where, and for timelines. So, historically it is proven true by many archeological finds.

maps.google.com can tell me where churches are. Does that make what they stand for and what the beliefs that occur inside it happen true?

Quote:

Where as, Mormanism for example, states that there was a 13th tribe of Isreal in America and Joseph Smith read all of the facts from 2 giant golden tablets. No historical proof of any of his story exists now or ever.

Technically man has edited the bible over the years more times then not. How do you know...YOUUUU know that the bible's ideas and words are what god wants? You have faith thats how. And faith is ones personal opinion to believe in something without factual proof of it.

Quote:

I cannot however prove to you that God is the creator. Thats the beauty of free will. there has to be a faith aspect for it to be a choice. but i digress.

Faith is a personal choice. Digression is ok in this arguement since it is an arguement of totality

Quote:

I at least am offering a believable explanation of where we came from shared by many people (after all, we know matter cannot come from nothing- that is a TRUTH of science).

Believeable to you in your faith with a side of personal opinions. We all know god must of come from something. Thats something that I've see faith crumble over.

Quote:

whats yours? You say I have no arguement till we know, I say how can you call me wrong when you don't know either?

I can tell you I dont know. I believe I do not have the facts, the mindpower or the time to figure it out. Thus I live that section of my life in ignornace. I dont live in the past, or the future in that regards. I live in the now and the what I can effect in my life as it is now.

Quote:

You say "Christianity hasn't been around that long" Christianity, as an extension of Judaism,

An extension of. Thus this means it is a personal opinion of someone concering judaism thus making the religons birth at that point in time. Some of the religion may be rooted deeper, but on a whole....it was born when that personal opinion formed

Quote:

has been around since (the creation of the world by their beliefs)

I feel like I've said this a million times. Its still just personal beliefs. I've seen no cold hard facts one way or another. They just do no exsist within mans knowledge

Quote:

but historically since the first writings were found in the mesopotamian region around 1600 BC, many Jewsih writings have been discovered that date very closely back to that time. The Bible has been around approximately 2000 years since Paul worte most of the books around the time of Christ with the last one being finished sometime around 70 AD. It wasn't cannonized till later, but it had already been written and the books had already been widely accepted as the true cannonized Bible.

Wierd. The numbers you give me are based on carbon dating, yet religion throws out carbon dating as factual evidence on the age of the earth. If we believe whats written in those texts then its a religion of mankind and not of the creator. Its another arguement in itself. ...along with the dinosaurs one.

Quote:

you say "Wouldnt hundreds of people with a un-believable claim be a cult? You said it earlyier... "

Yes, if their claim were un-believable. Realize however, that the whole nation of Isreal believed this from its creation, and many people long before that (abrahamic timeline). It was somewhat mainstream (at very least in Isreal), either because it was believable, or because of society. Many other religions of the time such as Baal worhip, or roman and greek gods being worhiped did not stand the test of time.

By the very logic of religion is can only be a singular thing. The test of time has nothing to do with the truth. The truth will be of a factual nature and not change with time. 2+2 will always = 4. Time will not test that and change it. 5,000 years from now... its still the same. See where that arguement leads to?

Quote:

And finally, I was so discouraged to read that last part of your post. What if life does have a point!! What if we really were specifically created and loved by a God?

Try living it. What if life doesnt have a point? My PERSONAL OPINION is that if god created me and loved me their would be no question of his exsistance. There would of been no jesus. no hell. etc. etc. I could go on for a long time if I had the energy to.

Quote:

Then life would mean so much and every action would be very important! And you would be a neccessary piece in God's plan! Your life would and does matter!!

Gods plan? Now you're starting to sound like a cult to me. Thats something the matrix tackled. The kitchen scene. If you dont remember it, go watch it. You'll understand. Then watch the whole movie and look at it in the religous light. .. I'll leave with the what if game.

What if this religous ideaogly has been planted into our heads by the controllers of us whom are merely harvesting us for power. Why did the plant it?........ Perhaps look into the idea behind different versions of the matrix and why they failed. That tackles a lot of thinking.

Quote:

I just wanted to respond to a couple of the points you made. They were very good points! You had me thinking hard on a few of them! My tone in this is in no way condescending, more as an interesting discussion for me!

Its not an easy thing at all on either end. To me, faith just lets you apply the blinders to the questions mankind can think of and live life with something that the mind thinks it needs.